JUDGMENT : S.K. PANIGRAHI, J. 1. Since similar questions of law or facts are involved in all the Writ Petitions listed above, all the matters were heard together. However, this Court felt it apposite to decide W.P. (C) No. 37102 of 2021 first and whatever the outcome of the said Writ Petition, the same will be covered to other similar connected Writ Petitions mentioned above. (I) Facts of the case: 2. The petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has challenged the legality of the Letter No. 292 (R&G) dated 06.11.2021 under Annexure-5 issued by the Opposite Party No. 5-Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar withdrawing recognition from the petitioner's institution from the session 2020-2021 sans issuance of any notice or giving any opportunity to the institution. Such withdrawal of recognition has been done on the basis of recommendation received by the Opposite Party No. 5/Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar from the Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda. Even the said recommendation letter received from the Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda has not been served on the petitioner’s institution. On the contrary, the Opposite Party No. 3-District Education Officer, Khurda vide Letter No. 13316 dated 08.11.2021 under Annexure-6 requested the Opposite Party No. 5-Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar to allow the students of the schools mentioned therein to appear the Annual H.S.C. Examination-2022 as quasi-regular candidates through the nearby located Government High School. Further, the Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda vide order dated 13601 dated 17.11.2021 under Annexure-7 requested the Opposite Party No. 5/Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar to change the enrolment of Class-IX students of the schools mentioned therein to appear the Annual H.S.C. Examinatjion-2023 as quasi-regular candidates through the nearby Government High School. All these letters of the Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 5 are contrary to the Section-6-B (4) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity) and also against the provisions contained in Chapter-IX of the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha Regulation. All these letters of the Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 5 are contrary to the Section-6-B (4) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity) and also against the provisions contained in Chapter-IX of the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha Regulation. Hence, the petitioner prays for quashing of the letter dated 06.11.2021/Annexure-5 issued by the Opposite Party No. 5/Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar and letters dated 08.11.2021 and 17.11.2021 issued under Annexure-6 and 7 respectively by the Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda. (II) Submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner: 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Jageswaree Uchha Bidyalaya, Aloi, in the district of Khurda was established in the year 1992 and got permission from the State Government from the academic session 1996-97 to open Class-VIII as required under the statute. Recognition of the said school was granted by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 14.01.1999 from the session 1996-97. 4. He further submitted that as per the law, once the institution is opened with the permission and recognition by the Prescribed Authority, the institution has to apply for grant of recognition for both classes i.e. Classes-IX and X through the prescribed format to the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No. 4/Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar granted recognition to the institution for Classes-IX and X vide letter dated 29.12.2001. It is further submitted that Regulation 16 of Chapter-IX of the Board Regulation prescribes certain criteria to be filled up by the institution seeking recognition from the Board such as Classroom, Headmaster’s room, Teachers’ common room, Library room, Science equipment and Trained Teaching staffs as prescribed in the yardstick. The present institution has complied all the requirements and the recognition has been renewed from time to time by the Board of Secondary Education. At this backdrop, he pointed out that it is the duty of the Board to point out whether there is any deficiency or not so that the institution can take steps to rectify the said defects in time. So far as the present institution is concerned, no deficiency was pointed out by the Board. Opposite Party No. 5/Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar vide letter dated 06.11.2021/Annexure-5 withdrew the recognition of the petitioner’s institution retrospectively from the academic session 2020-21. So far as the present institution is concerned, no deficiency was pointed out by the Board. Opposite Party No. 5/Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar vide letter dated 06.11.2021/Annexure-5 withdrew the recognition of the petitioner’s institution retrospectively from the academic session 2020-21. The said withdrawal was purely based on the recommendation stated to have been made to the Board by Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda. It is further submitted that Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda has never communicated to the petitioner’s institution regarding such recommendation nor was it offered any opportunity to put-forth their case. The recommendation sent by the Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda was totally illegal because it has failed to pass muster of opportunity of being heard. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court to Clause-14 of Chapter-IX of the Board with the heading “Recognition of Institutions by the Board” which specifically prescribes that the Director of Public Instructions or any two members of the Board may bring forward a proposal regarding deprivation of school from its recognition. The said Clause has not been complied with in the present case. The said Clause is quoted below: “The Director of Public Instruction or any two members of the Board may bring forward a proposal that a school shall be deprived either in whole or in part, of its recognition. The recognition and Grants Committee shall, after affording the managing authorities of the school all reasonable facilities for stating its objections to the proposal, consider the proposal and transmit a copy of its proceedings, including a copy of any representation which may be made by such managing authorities thereon, to the Board. The Board shall consider the proposal and shall decide as it things fit and its decision shall be final.” 6. It is further submitted that as per Regulation-7 of Chapter-IX of the Board Regulation, it is mandatory that no institution shall be granted recognition without fulfillment of any of the conditions laid down by the Director of Secondary Education. In the present case, the Opposite Party No. 2/Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar has not yet pointed out any deficiency of non-fulfillment of condition of recognition by the petitioner. In the present case, the Opposite Party No. 2/Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar has not yet pointed out any deficiency of non-fulfillment of condition of recognition by the petitioner. It is further submitted that Section 6-B of the Act as amended from time to time, prescribes detailed procedures for withdrawal of the recognition from any institution. Undeniably, it is the fact that before withdrawal of recognition of the institution, no opportunity was given to the institution in order to remove the deficiency. Before passing of the order of withdrawal of recognition, the institution should have been afforded opportunity to put-forth its position and if any deficiency is there, it could have been removed by the institution. Hence, the decision to withdraw the recognition from the present institution is per se illegal. 7. It is further submitted that letter No. 13316 dated 08.11.2021/Annexure-6 has been issued by the Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda requesting the Opposite Party No. 5/Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar to allow the students of the schools mentioned therein to appear the Annual H.S.C. Examination-2022 as quasi-regular candidates through the nearby Government High School and letter No. 13601 dated 17.11.2021/Annexure-7 has been issued by the Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda requesting the Opposite Party No. 5/Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar to change the enrolment of Class-IX students of the schools mentioned therein to appear the Annual H.S.C. Examination-2023 as quasi-regular candidates through the nearby Government High School which smacks contradictions between the orders of the same authority. He further submitted that the letters dated 08.11.2021 and 17.11.2021 issued by the Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda are completely illegal and colorable exercise of power thwack an inherent bias. 8. He further submitted that Section 6-B (4) of the Act which in clear and unambiguous terms provides that notwithstanding withdrawal of recognition of a school, the students so admitted prior to such date of withdrawal or suspension shall be allowed to appear the examination conducted by the Board as if the recognition of the institution has not been withdrawn. 8. He further submitted that Section 6-B (4) of the Act which in clear and unambiguous terms provides that notwithstanding withdrawal of recognition of a school, the students so admitted prior to such date of withdrawal or suspension shall be allowed to appear the examination conducted by the Board as if the recognition of the institution has not been withdrawn. Section-6-B (4) of the Act is quoted hereunder: “(4) Notwithstanding the withdrawal or suspension of recognition under sub-section (3), the students admitted to that educational institution till the dates of such withdrawal or suspension shall be allowed to continue as if the said educational institution continues to be recognised till that batch of students appear in the examination conducted by the Board, the Council or the University, as the case may be. The educational institution shall not admit fresh students during the period of suspension or after withdrawal of recognition.” 9. From the aforesaid position of law, it is quite clear that the students pursuing in Classes-IX and X of the school even though they have taken admission prior to 06.11.2021 and now forced to be treated as quasi-regular candidates which is illegal. Nowhere, under any law it has been provided that an institution which was regularized will be automatically affected by the withdrawal of recognition and student will suffer. Such action is contrary to the spirit of Section-6-B (4) of the Act. Hence, the students who have been admitted to Classes-IX and X prior to the letter dated 06.11.2021/Annexure-5 issued by the Opposite Party No. 5/Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar ought to have been treated as regular candidates. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Tarini Thakurani Vidyapitha, Keonjhar vs. State of Odisha and Others, 2017 (1) OLR 523 wherein at paragraph-7 it has been observed as under: “In the case in hand, neither the prescribed authority has submitted any report in terms of sub-section 2 of Section 6 (B) of the Act to the committee nor a decision has been taken by the committee for withdrawal of recognition of the school for consideration of the Board to decide. Here in the case, the District Education Officer, the opposite party No. 4 has sent his recommendation to opposite party No. 3 for taking necessary action for withdrawal of recognition when admittedly opposite party No. 4 is not prescribed authority under the Act either to recommend to opposite party No. 3 or to take any decision himself for withdrawal of recognition. However it is seen that the opposite party No. 3 has acted upon that report of opposite party No. 4. Thus the order is without jurisdiction.” (III) Submissions by the Opposite Parties: 11. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5/Board of Secondary Education submitted that Chapter-IX of the Board’s Regulation mandates certain criteria which must be fulfilled by the school seeking recognition. The said criteria are like Classroom, Headmaster’s room, Teachers’ common room, Library room, Science equipment and Trained Teaching staffs etc. All these conditions must be complied with prior to granting recognition. The deficiency of criteria for fulfilling recognition was found in the year 2020-21 which led to the withdrawal of recognition in the year 2021. 12. He further submitted that the contentions of the petitioner regarding withdrawal of recognition from the academic session 2020-2021 on the basis of recommendation of the Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda without communicating such recommendation to the petitioner is dumbfounded. The Board of Secondary Education is not the solitary authority to withdraw the recognition of the petitioner’s institution on the basis of the recommendation of the Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda. It also seems that the students have taken admission prior to withdrawal of recognition, yet they were asked to appear as quasi-regular candidates through nearby Government High School, is also incorrect. 13. Learned counsel for the Board of Secondary Education further pointed that the deficiency found by the Government authorities on physical verification insofar as the petitioner’s institution is concerned, the defects noticed in the letter not recommending the renewal of recognition as follows: “(i) A.H.S.C. results during the last three years not satisfactory. (ii) The student’s enrollment in Class-IX is 20 (Twenty) and in Class-X is 15 (Fifteen) which is not encouraging. (iii) There non-availability of contiguous land of three acres in favour of the school. (ii) The student’s enrollment in Class-IX is 20 (Twenty) and in Class-X is 15 (Fifteen) which is not encouraging. (iii) There non-availability of contiguous land of three acres in favour of the school. The headmaster has reported for same.” He further submitted that the matter was placed before the R&G Committee for consideration of recommendation made by the Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda. After thread bare discussion, the R&G Committee approved the withdrawal of recognition of seven schools including the petitioner’s institution. 14. It was further contended that the Board of Secondary Education felt it expedient to take the help of the Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda to conduct a field enquiry and furnish a detailed report regarding deficiency in the schools. He further pointed out that the proceeding of the R&G Committee was circulated to the Opposite Party No. 5/Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar for taking immediate action to provide facilities for appearance of the candidates in Annual H.S.C. Examination-2021 as quasi-regular candidates through different recognized High School suggested by the Opposite Party No. 3/District Education Officer, Khurda. The interest of the students is fully protected by the Board of Secondary Education. Allegation of different yardsticks adopted for different schools is also baseless. He contended that the provisions under Section 6-B (4) of the Act provides protection to the students to appear in the examination through another school. Hence, they are obviously treated as quasi-regular candidates. (IV) Courts Reasoning: 15. In view of the argument advanced by the parties, it is clearly evident that the petitioners’ institutions, in the present cases, do not meet the Chapter-IX of the Board’s Regulation which mandates certain criteria that must be fulfilled by the school securing recognition. The said criteria are like Classroom, Headmaster’s room, Teachers’ common room, Library room, Science equipment and Trained Teaching staffs etc. All these conditions must be complied apriori in case of granting of recognition. The deficiency of criteria for fulfilling recognition was found in the year 2020-21 which led to the withdrawal of recognition of the petitioner’s institution in the year 2021. 16. All these conditions must be complied apriori in case of granting of recognition. The deficiency of criteria for fulfilling recognition was found in the year 2020-21 which led to the withdrawal of recognition of the petitioner’s institution in the year 2021. 16. Since the future of the students and those of the schools are at stake, the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha is directed to afford a fresh opportunity to the petitioners’ schools so as to comply with the requirements for the recognition parameters as set out by the Board by affording a reasonable opportunity and time to remove the defects. If they fail to comply with the recognition parameters, the Board is free to take decision as per law. 17. Accordingly, all these present Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to cost.